Language as a factor of national unity (debates between the Archaists and the Karamzinians in early 19th century)

This study considers issues related to the linguistic situation at the border of the 18th and the 19th centuries. It analyses historical and linguistic concepts of A. S. Shishkov, who was the leader of archaists and the founder of the literary circle ''Beseda Lubitilei Russkogo Slova'', and who disputed with the followers of N.M. Karamzin. The author notes that the relevance of linguistic debates is explained by different reasons. Firstly, a new form of state existence - the nation based on the unity of cultural and linguistic domain - had emerged in Europe and begun its development. Secondly, active processes of borrowings, including linguistic, since the age of Peter I persistently demanded the definition of boundaries of ''self' and ''others''. The author aims to clarify the role of the linguistic debate in the process of building of the National State and, in particular, to answer the question of the role of the language in Shishkov's programme of creation of such a State. It is noted that A.S. Shishkov featured his modern language (''Rossiyski'') as a descendant from the Old Church language (''Slavensky''). The utopian situation of the equality between the Russian and Old Church languages allowed to judge the antiquity and continuity of the national tradition, conveyed by the Orthodox Church and the people. The study analyses Shishkov's views on the people's language and determines the importance of the written language in his concept. Along with folklore and the language of holy books, Shishkov places emphasis on historical works. The author points out the fact that Shishkov was one of the first commentator of ''Slovo o Polku Igoreve'' and created his own ''Prelozhenie Igorevoi Pesni''. Therefore, only by combining these components of literature - holy books, historical works and folklore, by to A.S. Shishkov, one can create the Russian literary language that will become a prologue to the reconstruction of a unified national tradition, which was destroyed by modernization. The article concludes that the language (and script, with remarks) was the most important marker of belonging to a particular society at that time and acted as a research area for a variety of ideological schemes.

Keywords

Authors

References